User login
Are Children Born Through ART at Higher Risk for Cancer?
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The results of a large French study comparing the cancer risk in children conceived through assisted reproductive technology (ART) with that of naturally conceived children were published recently in JAMA Network Open. This study is one of the largest to date on this subject: It included 8,526,306 children born in France between 2010 and 2021, of whom 260,236 (3%) were conceived through ART, and followed them up to a median age of 6.7 years.
Motivations for the Study
ART (including artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization [IVF], or intracytoplasmic sperm injection [ICSI] with fresh or frozen embryo transfer) accounts for about 1 in 30 births in France. However, limited and heterogeneous data have suggested an increased risk for certain health disorders, including cancer, among children conceived through ART. Therefore, a large-scale evaluation of cancer risk in these children is important.
No Overall Increase
In all, 9256 children developed cancer, including 292 who were conceived through ART. Thus, Nevertheless, a slight increase in the risk for leukemia was observed in children conceived through IVF or ICSI. The investigators observed approximately one additional case for every 5000 newborns conceived through IVF or ICSI who reached age 10 years.
Epidemiological monitoring should be continued to better evaluate long-term risks and see whether the risk for leukemia is confirmed. If it is, then it will be useful to investigate the mechanisms related to ART techniques or the fertility disorders of parents that could lead to an increased risk for leukemia.
This story was translated from Univadis France, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The ASCO Annual Meeting Starts This Week
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
From its origins in 1964, ASCO’s annual event has grown to become the world’s largest clinical oncology meeting, drawing attendees from across the globe.
More than 7000 abstracts were submitted for this year’s meeting a new record — and over 5000 were selected for presentation.
This year’s chair of the Annual Meeting Education Committee, Thomas William LeBlanc, MD, told us he has been attending the meeting since his training days more than a decade ago.
The event is “just incredibly empowering and energizing,” Dr. LeBlanc said, with opportunities to catch up with old colleagues and meet new ones, learn how far oncology has come and where it’s headed, and hear clinical pearls to take back the clinic.
This year’s theme, selected by ASCO President Lynn M. Schuchter, MD, is “The Art and Science of Cancer Care: From Comfort to Cure.”
Dr. LeBlanc, a blood cancer specialist at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, said the theme has been woven throughout the abstract and educational sessions. Most sessions will have at least one presentation related to how we support people — not only “when we cure them but also when we can’t cure them,” he said.
Topics will include patient well-being, comfort measures, and survivorship. And for the first time the plenary session will include a palliative care abstract that addresses whether or not palliative care can be delivered effectively through telemedicine. The session is on Sunday, June 2.
Other potentially practice changing plenary abstracts tackle immunotherapy combinations for resectable melanoma, perioperative chemotherapy vs neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer, and osimertinib after definitive chemoradiotherapy for unresectable non–small cell lung cancer.
ASCO is piloting a slightly different format for research presentations this year. Instead of starting with context and background, speakers have been asked to present study results upfront as well as repeat them at the end of the talk. The reason behind the tweak is that engagement and retention tend to be better when results are presented upfront, instead of just at the end of a talk.
A popular session — ASCO Voices — has also been given a more central position in the conference: Friday, May 31. In this session, speakers will give short presentations about their personal experiences as providers, researchers, or patients.
ASCO Voices is a relatively recent addition to the meeting that has grown and gotten better. The talks are usually “very powerful narratives” that remind clinicians about “the importance of what they’re doing each day,” Dr. LeBlanc said.
Snippets of the talks will be played while people wait for sessions to begin at the meeting, so attendees who miss the Friday talks can still hear them.
In terms of educational sessions, Dr. LeBlanc highlighted two that might be of general interest to practicing oncologists: A joint ASCO/American Association for Cancer Research session entitled “Drugging the ‘Undruggable’ Target: Successes, Challenges, and the Road Ahead,” on Sunday morning and “Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter” on Monday morning.
As a blood cancer specialist, he said he is particularly interested in the topline results from the ASC4FIRST trial of asciminib, a newer kinase inhibitor, in newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukemia, presented on Friday.
As in past years, this news organization will be on hand providing coverage with a dedicated team of reporters, editors, and videographers. Stop by our exhibit hall booth — number 26030 — to learn about the tools we offer to support your practice.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
Treating High Stage cSCC: Better Results With Mohs Surgery vs Wide Local Excision, Study Finds
PHOENIX — . The benefit was seen across all outcome measures, including rates of recurrence, metastasis, and mortality.
These data support Mohs surgery as being the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC, commented lead author David M. Wang, MD, Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Fellow, at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “We found that across all outcomes, high-stage cSCC treated with WLE had a roughly twofold greater risk for recurrence, metastasis, or disease-specific death compared to Mohs,” he said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), where he presented the results.
External validation using data from a multicenter cSCC research collaboration from 12 contributing sites from across the United States, as well as international sites, was also conducted. “We performed the external validation by comparing results of the BWH-only cohort, which was the primary study, with the full multicenter data and with the full multicenter data minus the BWH cohort, and the findings were nearly identical in all three analyses,” Dr. Wang said.
Although patients diagnosed with cSCC usually have good outcomes, high-stage disease is associated with a higher risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death. Both Mohs surgery and WLE are used to treat cSCC, but a comparison of outcomes has not been well established in the setting of high-stage cSCC. Comparing the two surgical strategies can be problematic, as both patient and/or tumor characteristics can make it difficult to determine which outcomes can be attributed solely to the treatment type.
Mohs Superior Across the Board
In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues aimed to compare the results of Mohs surgery and WLE in patients with high-stage cSCC (BWH Staging System T2b or T3) and used statistical methods to balance baseline patient and tumor characteristics.
“To control for confounding by indication — differences in baseline patient or tumor characteristics — that are associated with both the treatment received and outcomes, we used propensity score weighting so that the baseline characteristics were balanced in the two treatment groups,” Dr. Wang told this news organization. “This statistical method aims to simulate randomization in a randomized controlled trial such that any differences in outcomes after propensity score weighting is attributed solely to the treatment received.”
The study used electronic medical records from a single tertiary care academic institution, and 216 patients with high-stage cSCC who had undergone surgery from January 2000 to December 2019 were included in the analysis. The median follow-up time was 33.1 months.
They found that overall, the risk for all adverse outcomes was lower among patients who had undergone Mohs surgery than among those treated with WLE, with the following results: Rates of local recurrence (5-year CI, 10.8% vs 22.1%, respectively; P = .003), nodal metastasis (11.9% vs 19.3%; P = .04), distant metastasis (4.7% vs 9.0%; P = .09), any recurrence (17.0% vs 34.2%; P < .001), and disease-specific death (8.5% vs 20.3%; P = .001).
“The data supports Mohs surgery as the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC in accordance with NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines for very high-risk cSCC,” Dr. Wang said. He pointed out that the terminology “very high risk” in NCCN equates to “high stage” in other staging systems (BWH T2b or higher, AJCC T3 or higher).
There is still “a substantial proportion” of patients with high-stage cSCC who are eligible for Mohs but are treated with WLE, he added. “Our hope is that these findings provide additional data to support Mohs as the standard of care for primary surgical treatment of high-stage cSCC.”
Supports Benefits of Mohs
Weighing in on the research, Thomas E. Rohrer, MD, a dermatologic surgeon in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, noted that this was an excellent study that demonstrates benefits of Mohs surgery over straight excision on essentially all outcomes investigated and measured.
“The data clearly shows that Mohs should be used whenever possible,” he said. “There are some patients and facilities that do not have access or timely access to Mohs, so they would likely proceed with standard wide local excision. Otherwise, if there is the capability to perform Mohs, it would be preferred,” he added.
“There is no benefit to a standard excision over Mohs,” Dr. Rohrer emphasized. “If a surgeon is not sure if they have attained clear margins, they could and often do take a little more tissue to be certain.”
Also asked to comment on the data, Chad L. Prather, MD, a dermatologist in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said, “We know that Mohs has been used for cancers that are not highly staged and we know it’s better than WLE, but this study shows that it is beneficial for higher stage cancers.”
However, he cautioned that unlike early-stage cancers, where Mohs is usually a definitive treatment, with higher stage disease it is a starting point. “As a takeaway, Mohs is superior, but it needs to be followed through,” he said. “These patients need to be closely followed as they are at a high risk for recurrence and metastasis and may need to be worked up for lymph node involvement and need additional therapy going forward.”
Dr. Prather also pointed out that there are circumstances when WLE may be a more suitable treatment. “Mohs is not very good if there is bony involvement,” he said. “This most often happens when the lesion is on the scalp and has invaded the skull. WLE may still be the preferred choice.”
Additionally, Mohs is not the best choice if the tumor is broken into multiple segments. “In these cases, WLE may be preferred,” Dr. Prather added. “But overall, Mohs is one of the best tools we have, and it stands to reason that it works well for high-risk tumors, as this study shows.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rohrer and Dr. Prather had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — . The benefit was seen across all outcome measures, including rates of recurrence, metastasis, and mortality.
These data support Mohs surgery as being the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC, commented lead author David M. Wang, MD, Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Fellow, at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “We found that across all outcomes, high-stage cSCC treated with WLE had a roughly twofold greater risk for recurrence, metastasis, or disease-specific death compared to Mohs,” he said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), where he presented the results.
External validation using data from a multicenter cSCC research collaboration from 12 contributing sites from across the United States, as well as international sites, was also conducted. “We performed the external validation by comparing results of the BWH-only cohort, which was the primary study, with the full multicenter data and with the full multicenter data minus the BWH cohort, and the findings were nearly identical in all three analyses,” Dr. Wang said.
Although patients diagnosed with cSCC usually have good outcomes, high-stage disease is associated with a higher risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death. Both Mohs surgery and WLE are used to treat cSCC, but a comparison of outcomes has not been well established in the setting of high-stage cSCC. Comparing the two surgical strategies can be problematic, as both patient and/or tumor characteristics can make it difficult to determine which outcomes can be attributed solely to the treatment type.
Mohs Superior Across the Board
In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues aimed to compare the results of Mohs surgery and WLE in patients with high-stage cSCC (BWH Staging System T2b or T3) and used statistical methods to balance baseline patient and tumor characteristics.
“To control for confounding by indication — differences in baseline patient or tumor characteristics — that are associated with both the treatment received and outcomes, we used propensity score weighting so that the baseline characteristics were balanced in the two treatment groups,” Dr. Wang told this news organization. “This statistical method aims to simulate randomization in a randomized controlled trial such that any differences in outcomes after propensity score weighting is attributed solely to the treatment received.”
The study used electronic medical records from a single tertiary care academic institution, and 216 patients with high-stage cSCC who had undergone surgery from January 2000 to December 2019 were included in the analysis. The median follow-up time was 33.1 months.
They found that overall, the risk for all adverse outcomes was lower among patients who had undergone Mohs surgery than among those treated with WLE, with the following results: Rates of local recurrence (5-year CI, 10.8% vs 22.1%, respectively; P = .003), nodal metastasis (11.9% vs 19.3%; P = .04), distant metastasis (4.7% vs 9.0%; P = .09), any recurrence (17.0% vs 34.2%; P < .001), and disease-specific death (8.5% vs 20.3%; P = .001).
“The data supports Mohs surgery as the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC in accordance with NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines for very high-risk cSCC,” Dr. Wang said. He pointed out that the terminology “very high risk” in NCCN equates to “high stage” in other staging systems (BWH T2b or higher, AJCC T3 or higher).
There is still “a substantial proportion” of patients with high-stage cSCC who are eligible for Mohs but are treated with WLE, he added. “Our hope is that these findings provide additional data to support Mohs as the standard of care for primary surgical treatment of high-stage cSCC.”
Supports Benefits of Mohs
Weighing in on the research, Thomas E. Rohrer, MD, a dermatologic surgeon in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, noted that this was an excellent study that demonstrates benefits of Mohs surgery over straight excision on essentially all outcomes investigated and measured.
“The data clearly shows that Mohs should be used whenever possible,” he said. “There are some patients and facilities that do not have access or timely access to Mohs, so they would likely proceed with standard wide local excision. Otherwise, if there is the capability to perform Mohs, it would be preferred,” he added.
“There is no benefit to a standard excision over Mohs,” Dr. Rohrer emphasized. “If a surgeon is not sure if they have attained clear margins, they could and often do take a little more tissue to be certain.”
Also asked to comment on the data, Chad L. Prather, MD, a dermatologist in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said, “We know that Mohs has been used for cancers that are not highly staged and we know it’s better than WLE, but this study shows that it is beneficial for higher stage cancers.”
However, he cautioned that unlike early-stage cancers, where Mohs is usually a definitive treatment, with higher stage disease it is a starting point. “As a takeaway, Mohs is superior, but it needs to be followed through,” he said. “These patients need to be closely followed as they are at a high risk for recurrence and metastasis and may need to be worked up for lymph node involvement and need additional therapy going forward.”
Dr. Prather also pointed out that there are circumstances when WLE may be a more suitable treatment. “Mohs is not very good if there is bony involvement,” he said. “This most often happens when the lesion is on the scalp and has invaded the skull. WLE may still be the preferred choice.”
Additionally, Mohs is not the best choice if the tumor is broken into multiple segments. “In these cases, WLE may be preferred,” Dr. Prather added. “But overall, Mohs is one of the best tools we have, and it stands to reason that it works well for high-risk tumors, as this study shows.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rohrer and Dr. Prather had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — . The benefit was seen across all outcome measures, including rates of recurrence, metastasis, and mortality.
These data support Mohs surgery as being the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC, commented lead author David M. Wang, MD, Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Dermatologic Oncology Fellow, at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)/Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. “We found that across all outcomes, high-stage cSCC treated with WLE had a roughly twofold greater risk for recurrence, metastasis, or disease-specific death compared to Mohs,” he said at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS), where he presented the results.
External validation using data from a multicenter cSCC research collaboration from 12 contributing sites from across the United States, as well as international sites, was also conducted. “We performed the external validation by comparing results of the BWH-only cohort, which was the primary study, with the full multicenter data and with the full multicenter data minus the BWH cohort, and the findings were nearly identical in all three analyses,” Dr. Wang said.
Although patients diagnosed with cSCC usually have good outcomes, high-stage disease is associated with a higher risk for recurrence, metastasis, and death. Both Mohs surgery and WLE are used to treat cSCC, but a comparison of outcomes has not been well established in the setting of high-stage cSCC. Comparing the two surgical strategies can be problematic, as both patient and/or tumor characteristics can make it difficult to determine which outcomes can be attributed solely to the treatment type.
Mohs Superior Across the Board
In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues aimed to compare the results of Mohs surgery and WLE in patients with high-stage cSCC (BWH Staging System T2b or T3) and used statistical methods to balance baseline patient and tumor characteristics.
“To control for confounding by indication — differences in baseline patient or tumor characteristics — that are associated with both the treatment received and outcomes, we used propensity score weighting so that the baseline characteristics were balanced in the two treatment groups,” Dr. Wang told this news organization. “This statistical method aims to simulate randomization in a randomized controlled trial such that any differences in outcomes after propensity score weighting is attributed solely to the treatment received.”
The study used electronic medical records from a single tertiary care academic institution, and 216 patients with high-stage cSCC who had undergone surgery from January 2000 to December 2019 were included in the analysis. The median follow-up time was 33.1 months.
They found that overall, the risk for all adverse outcomes was lower among patients who had undergone Mohs surgery than among those treated with WLE, with the following results: Rates of local recurrence (5-year CI, 10.8% vs 22.1%, respectively; P = .003), nodal metastasis (11.9% vs 19.3%; P = .04), distant metastasis (4.7% vs 9.0%; P = .09), any recurrence (17.0% vs 34.2%; P < .001), and disease-specific death (8.5% vs 20.3%; P = .001).
“The data supports Mohs surgery as the preferred surgical treatment option for high-stage cSCC in accordance with NCCN [National Comprehensive Cancer Network] guidelines for very high-risk cSCC,” Dr. Wang said. He pointed out that the terminology “very high risk” in NCCN equates to “high stage” in other staging systems (BWH T2b or higher, AJCC T3 or higher).
There is still “a substantial proportion” of patients with high-stage cSCC who are eligible for Mohs but are treated with WLE, he added. “Our hope is that these findings provide additional data to support Mohs as the standard of care for primary surgical treatment of high-stage cSCC.”
Supports Benefits of Mohs
Weighing in on the research, Thomas E. Rohrer, MD, a dermatologic surgeon in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, noted that this was an excellent study that demonstrates benefits of Mohs surgery over straight excision on essentially all outcomes investigated and measured.
“The data clearly shows that Mohs should be used whenever possible,” he said. “There are some patients and facilities that do not have access or timely access to Mohs, so they would likely proceed with standard wide local excision. Otherwise, if there is the capability to perform Mohs, it would be preferred,” he added.
“There is no benefit to a standard excision over Mohs,” Dr. Rohrer emphasized. “If a surgeon is not sure if they have attained clear margins, they could and often do take a little more tissue to be certain.”
Also asked to comment on the data, Chad L. Prather, MD, a dermatologist in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, said, “We know that Mohs has been used for cancers that are not highly staged and we know it’s better than WLE, but this study shows that it is beneficial for higher stage cancers.”
However, he cautioned that unlike early-stage cancers, where Mohs is usually a definitive treatment, with higher stage disease it is a starting point. “As a takeaway, Mohs is superior, but it needs to be followed through,” he said. “These patients need to be closely followed as they are at a high risk for recurrence and metastasis and may need to be worked up for lymph node involvement and need additional therapy going forward.”
Dr. Prather also pointed out that there are circumstances when WLE may be a more suitable treatment. “Mohs is not very good if there is bony involvement,” he said. “This most often happens when the lesion is on the scalp and has invaded the skull. WLE may still be the preferred choice.”
Additionally, Mohs is not the best choice if the tumor is broken into multiple segments. “In these cases, WLE may be preferred,” Dr. Prather added. “But overall, Mohs is one of the best tools we have, and it stands to reason that it works well for high-risk tumors, as this study shows.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Wang reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rohrer and Dr. Prather had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2024
ASTRO Releases New EBRT Guideline for Symptomatic Bone Mets
The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.
In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
Indications for Palliative Radiation
EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.
Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation
Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.
For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.
Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.
The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation
For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.
Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.
The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity
For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.
“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.
Limitations
While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.
Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.
The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.
In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
Indications for Palliative Radiation
EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.
Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation
Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.
For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.
Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.
The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation
For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.
Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.
The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity
For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.
“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.
Limitations
While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.
Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.
The guideline was needed to update previous recommendations and incorporate new high-quality evidence for the management of symptomatic bone metastases, Sara Alcorn, MD, PhD, of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues wrote in Practical Radiation Oncology.
The focus was on the efficacy of EBRT in reducing pain, improving skeletal function, and enhancing quality of life, they wrote in the clinical practice guideline.
In developing their recommendations, the ASTRO task force reviewed evidence from 53 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 31 nonrandomized studies, and considered clinical experience.
Indications for Palliative Radiation
EBRT is strongly recommended for reducing pain from osseous metastasis and improving ambulatory status, sphincter function, and reducing pain in patients with spinal metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases and an anticipated life expectancy of at least 4 weeks, EBRT is conditionally recommended to improve quality of life.
Implementation of other Treatments Alongside Palliative Radiation
Instead of RT alone, surgery with postoperative RT is conditionally recommended for patients with compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina.
Postoperative RT is strongly recommended for patients who have undergone surgery for non-spine bone metastases or spine metastases without involving spinal cord or cauda equina compression.
For patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina, combining RT with dexamethasone is strongly recommended over RT alone.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Initial Palliative Radiation
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases undergoing conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
For patients with spinal bone metastases causing compression of the spinal cord or cauda equina who are not candidates for initial surgical decompression and are treated with conventional palliative RT, strongly recommended doses are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 1600 cGy in 2 fractions, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, or 3000 cGy in 10 fractions.
When selecting dose-fractionation, consider patient and disease factors such as prognosis and radiosensitivity, the authors wrote.
Highly conformal planning and delivery techniques, such as intensity-modulated radiation therapy, are conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases compressing the spinal cord or cauda equina who are receiving dose-escalated palliative RT.
The strongly recommended stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) doses for patients with symptomatic bone metastases are 1200 to 1600 cGy in 1 fraction for non-spine metastases and 2400 cGy in 2 fractions for spine metastases. Other established SBRT dose and fractionation regimens with similar biologically effective doses may be considered based on patient tumor characteristics, normal tissue factors, and physician experience.
For patients with symptomatic bone metastases who have an ECOG PS of 0-2, are not undergoing surgical intervention, and have no neurological symptoms, SBRT is conditionally recommended over conventional palliative RT. Other factors to consider include life expectancy, tumor radiosensitivity, and metastatic disease burden, the guideline says.
Techniques, Dose-Fractionation, and Dose-Constraints for Palliative Reirradiation
For patients with spinal bone metastases requiring reirradiation to the same site, the strongly recommended conventional palliative RT regimens are 800 cGy in 1 fraction, 2000 cGy in 5 fractions, 2400 cGy in 6 fractions, or 2000 cGy in 8 fractions. When determining the RT dose-fractionation, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance, the guideline says.
Treatment with SBRT is conditionally recommended for patients with spinal bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site. When determining if SBRT is appropriate, consider patient factors such as urgency of treatment, prognosis, and radio-resistance. In addition, consider the prior RT dose, time interval, and total spinal cord tolerance when determining the RT dose-fractionation, the authors say.
The strongly recommended options for patients with symptomatic non-spine bone metastases needing reirradiation at the same site are single-fraction RT (800 cGy in 1 fraction) or multifraction conventional palliative RT (2000 cGy in 5 fractions or 2400 cGy in 6 fractions).
Impact of Techniques and Dose-fractionation on Quality of Life and Toxicity
For patients with bone metastases undergoing palliative radiation, it is strongly recommended to use a shared decision-making approach to determine the dose, fractionation, and supportive measures to optimize quality of life.
“Based on published data, the ASTRO task force’s recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases,” the guideline panelists said.
Limitations
While the guideline provides comprehensive recommendations, the panelists underscored the importance of individualized treatment approaches. Future research is needed to address gaps in evidence, particularly regarding advanced RT techniques and reirradiation strategies.
Guideline development was funded by ASTRO, with the systematic evidence review funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The panelists disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Elekta, Teladoc, and others.
FROM PRACTICAL RADIATION ONCOLOGY
Obesity and Cancer: Untangling a Complex Web
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.
The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers.
Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.
While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.
Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?
There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?
When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.
A Consistent but Complicated Relationship
Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.
Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.
“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.
That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.
At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes.
It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.
Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells.
But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.
That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.
How Big Is the Effect?
While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably.
Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.
With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.
A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).
Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.
Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.
CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.
Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.
When Do Extra Pounds Matter?
When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?
Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.
A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years.
The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.
Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers.
An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.
There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.
But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.
“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”
Does Weight Loss Help?
With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.
Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.
Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers.
A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.
But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.
Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”
“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”
Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations.
People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week.
“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.
The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers.
Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.
While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.
Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?
There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?
When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.
A Consistent but Complicated Relationship
Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.
Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.
“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.
That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.
At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes.
It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.
Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells.
But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.
That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.
How Big Is the Effect?
While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably.
Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.
With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.
A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).
Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.
Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.
CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.
Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.
When Do Extra Pounds Matter?
When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?
Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.
A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years.
The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.
Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers.
An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.
There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.
But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.
“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”
Does Weight Loss Help?
With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.
Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.
Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers.
A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.
But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.
Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”
“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”
Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations.
People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week.
“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 684,000 Americans are diagnosed with an “obesity-associated” cancer each year.
The incidence of many of these cancers has been rising in recent years, particularly among younger people — a trend that sits in contrast with the overall decline in cancers with no established relationship to excess weight, such as lung and skin cancers.
Is obesity the new smoking? Not exactly.
While about 42% of cancers — including common ones such as colorectal and postmenopausal breast cancers — are considered obesity-related, only about 8% of incident cancers are attributed to excess body weight. People often develop those diseases regardless of weight.
Although plenty of evidence points to excess body fat as a cancer risk factor, it’s unclear at what point excess weight has an effect. Is gaining weight later in life, for instance, better or worse for cancer risk than being overweight or obese from a young age?
There’s another glaring knowledge gap: Does losing weight at some point in adulthood change the picture? In other words, how many of those 684,000 diagnoses might have been prevented if people shed excess pounds?
When it comes to weight and cancer risk, “there’s a lot we don’t know,” said Jennifer W. Bea, PhD, associate professor, health promotion sciences, University of Arizona, Tucson.
A Consistent but Complicated Relationship
Given the growing incidence of obesity — which currently affects about 42% of US adults and 20% of children and teenagers — it’s no surprise that many studies have delved into the potential effects of excess weight on cancer rates.
Although virtually all the evidence comes from large cohort studies, leaving the cause-effect question open, certain associations keep showing up.
“What we know is that, consistently, a higher body mass index [BMI] — particularly in the obese category — leads to a higher risk of multiple cancers,” said Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt, MD, MPH, codirector, Colon and Rectal Cancer Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston.
In a widely cited report published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 2016, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) analyzed over 1000 epidemiologic studies on body fat and cancer. The agency pointed to over a dozen cancers, including some of the most common and deadly, linked to excess body weight.
That list includes esophageal adenocarcinoma and endometrial cancer — associated with the highest risk — along with kidney, liver, stomach (gastric cardia), pancreatic, colorectal, postmenopausal breast, gallbladder, ovarian, and thyroid cancers, plus multiple myeloma and meningioma. There’s also “limited” evidence linking excess weight to additional cancer types, including aggressive prostate cancer and certain head and neck cancers.
At the same time, Dr. Meyerhardt said, many of those same cancers are also associated with issues that lead to, or coexist with, overweight and obesity, including poor diet, lack of exercise, and metabolic conditions such as diabetes.
It’s a complicated web, and it’s likely, Dr. Meyerhardt said, that high BMI both directly affects cancer risk and is part of a “causal pathway” of other factors that do.
Regarding direct effects, preclinical research has pointed to multiple ways in which excess body fat could contribute to cancer, said Karen M. Basen-Engquist, PhD, MPH, professor, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Services, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.
One broad mechanism to help explain the obesity-cancer link is chronic systemic inflammation because excess fat tissue can raise levels of substances in the body, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha and interleukin 6, which fuel inflammation. Excess fat also contributes to hyperinsulinemia — too much insulin in the blood — which can help promote the growth and spread of tumor cells.
But the underlying reasons also appear to vary by cancer type, Dr. Basen-Engquist said. With hormonally driven cancer types, such as breast and endometrial, excess body fat may alter hormone levels in ways that spur tumor growth. Extra fat tissue may, for example, convert androgens into estrogens, which could help feed estrogen-dependent tumors.
That, Dr. Basen-Engquist noted, could be why excess weight is associated with postmenopausal, not premenopausal, breast cancer: Before menopause, body fat is a relatively minor contributor to estrogen levels but becomes more important after menopause.
How Big Is the Effect?
While more than a dozen cancers have been consistently linked to excess weight, the strength of those associations varies considerably.
Endometrial and esophageal cancers are two that stand out. In the 2016 IARC analysis, people with severe obesity had a seven-times greater risk for endometrial cancer and 4.8-times greater risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma vs people with a normal BMI.
With other cancers, the risk increases for those with severe obesity compared with a normal BMI were far more modest: 10% for ovarian cancer, 30% for colorectal cancer, and 80% for kidney and stomach cancers, for example. For postmenopausal breast cancer, every five-unit increase in BMI was associated with a 10% relative risk increase.
A 2018 study from the American Cancer Society, which attempted to estimate the proportion of cancers in the United States attributable to modifiable risk factors — including alcohol consumption, ultraviolet rays exposure, and physical inactivity — found that smoking accounted for the highest proportion of cancer cases by a wide margin (19%), but excess weight came in second (7.8%).
Again, weight appeared to play a bigger role in certain cancers than others: An estimated 60% of endometrial cancers were linked to excess weight, as were roughly one third of esophageal, kidney, and liver cancers. At the other end of the spectrum, just over 11% of breast, 5% of colorectal, and 4% of ovarian cancers were attributable to excess weight.
Even at the lower end, those rates could make a big difference on the population level, especially for groups with higher rates of obesity.
CDC data show that obesity-related cancers are rising among women younger than 50 years, most rapidly among Hispanic women, and some less common obesity-related cancers, such as stomach, thyroid and pancreatic, are also rising among Black individuals and Hispanic Americans.
Obesity may be one reason for growing cancer disparities, said Leah Ferrucci, PhD, MPH, assistant professor, epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut. But, she added, the evidence is limited because Black individuals and Hispanic Americans are understudied.
When Do Extra Pounds Matter?
When it comes to cancer risk, at what point in life does excess weight, or weight gain, matter? Is the standard weight gain in middle age, for instance, as hazardous as being overweight or obese from a young age?
Some evidence suggests there’s no “safe” time for putting on excess pounds.
A recent meta-analysis concluded that weight gain at any point after age 18 years is associated with incremental increases in the risk for postmenopausal breast cancer. A 2023 study in JAMA Network Open found a similar pattern with colorectal and other gastrointestinal cancers: People who had sustained overweight or obesity from age 20 years through middle age faced an increased risk of developing those cancers after age 55 years.
The timing of weight gain didn’t seem to matter either. The same elevated risk held among people who were normal weight in their younger years but became overweight after age 55 years.
Those studies focused on later-onset disease. But, in recent years, experts have tracked a troubling rise in early-onset cancers — those diagnosed before age 50 years — particularly gastrointestinal cancers.
An obvious question, Dr. Meyerhardt said, is whether the growing prevalence of obesity among young people is partly to blame.
There’s some data to support that, he said. An analysis from the Nurses’ Health Study II found that women with obesity had double the risk for early-onset colorectal cancer as those with a normal BMI. And every 5-kg increase in weight after age 18 years was associated with a 9% increase in colorectal cancer risk.
But while obesity trends probably partly explain the rise in early-onset cancers, there is likely more to the story, Dr. Meyerhardt said.
“I think all of us who see an increasing number of patients under 50 with colorectal cancer know there’s a fair number who do not fit that [high BMI] profile,” he said. “There’s a fair number over 50 who don’t either.”
Does Weight Loss Help?
With all the evidence pointing to high BMI as a cancer risk factor, a logical conclusion is that weight loss should reduce that excess risk. However, Dr. Bea said, there’s actually little data to support that, and what exists comes from observational studies.
Some research has focused on people who had substantial weight loss after bariatric surgery, with encouraging results. A study published in JAMA found that among 5053 people who underwent bariatric surgery, 2.9% developed an obesity-related cancer over 10 years compared with 4.9% in the nonsurgery group.
Most people, however, aim for less dramatic weight loss, with the help of diet and exercise or sometimes medication. Some evidence shows that a modest degree of weight loss may lower the risks for postmenopausal breast and endometrial cancers.
A 2020 pooled analysis found, for instance, that among women aged ≥ 50 years, those who lost as little as 2.0-4.5 kg, or 4.4-10.0 pounds, and kept it off for 10 years had a lower risk for breast cancer than women whose weight remained stable. And losing more weight — 9 kg, or about 20 pounds, or more — was even better for lowering cancer risk.
But other research suggests the opposite. A recent analysis found that people who lost weight within the past 2 years through diet and exercise had a higher risk for a range of cancers compared with those who did not lose weight. Overall, though, the increased risk was quite low.
Whatever the research does, or doesn’t, show about weight and cancer risk, Dr. Basen-Engquist said, it’s important that risk factors, obesity and otherwise, aren’t “used as blame tools.”
“With obesity, behavior certainly plays into it,” she said. “But there are so many influences on our behavior that are socially determined.”
Both Dr. Basen-Engquist and Dr. Meyerhardt said it’s important for clinicians to consider the individual in front of them and for everyone to set realistic expectations.
People with obesity should not feel they have to become thin to be healthier, and no one has to leap from being sedentary to exercising several hours a week.
“We don’t want patients to feel that if they don’t get to a stated goal in a guideline, it’s all for naught,” Dr. Meyerhardt said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Study Finds Immunosuppression Affects Risk for Poor Outcomes in Patients with cSCC
PHOENIX — Immunosuppression is an independent risk factor for poorer outcomes in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), according to new research that was presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) 2024 annual meeting.
Even though immunosuppression is strongly associated with an increased risk for cSCC, studies to date have generally not shown it to be an independent risk factor for metastasis and disease-specific death (DSD), after accounting for primary tumor stage.
“Solid organ transplant puts patients at risk for developing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and it’s more likely to have aggressive features,” said study author Jason Klein, MD, PhD, a dermatology resident at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “But it’s still not known if immunosuppression is an independent risk factor.”
Other groups “have tried to tackle this, but they have all primarily been single-institution data,” he noted, adding that “results so far have been tipping the scale towards immunosuppression not being an independent risk factor” for worse outcomes.
Immunosuppressed individuals face a greater risk for cSCC than the general population and often present with more aggressive, multifocal disease. However, Dr. Klein explained that a previous retrospective study comprising a cohort of approximately 7600 tumors from two centers reported that immunosuppression was not an independent risk factor for both tumor metastasis and cancer-specific death after adjusting for tumor characteristics.
Tipped the Scale
Therefore, the goal of the current study was to repeat this analysis but in a much larger retrospective cohort. Dr. Klein and his colleagues pooled cSCC data from 12 dermatology centers (11 academic and one private) that were located in the United States, Spain, and Brazil. The cohort included 4392 patients (3769 immunocompetent patients and 623 immunosuppressed patients) with 19,237 tumors (15,191 immunocompetent and 4046 immunosuppressed). Study endpoints included local recurrence, metastasis (nodal, satellite/in-transit, and distant), DSD, and “major poor outcomes” (defined as metastasis and DSD combined).
About 30% of the immunosuppressed patients were organ transplant recipients (OTR) and 10% had chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Half of the immunocompetent patients (50.3%) underwent Mohs surgery as the primary treatment, as did 58.2% of the immunosuppressed patients.
On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of “major poor outcomes” included immunosuppression (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.3; P = .04), Brigham and Women’s Hospital tumor stage (SHR 6.7 for T2a, 18.1 for T2b, and 37.2 for T3; P < .001 for all), location on the head/neck (SHR, 2.1; P < .001), and adjuvant radiation (SHR, 1.6; P < .001).
But when metastasis and DSD were evaluated separately, immunosuppression was only predictive of DSD (SHR, 1.7; P = .008) but not metastasis (SHR, 1.2; P = .21). Dr. Klein explained that they also conducted a separate subanalysis limited to OTR and patients with CLL, which demonstrated that immunosuppression was no longer a significant predictor of “major poor outcomes” (SHR, 0.9; P = .66 for OTR; SHR, 1.4; P = .25 for CLL).
“Organ transplant status and CLL were not independent risk factors for major poor outcomes,” he said. “But in summary, we may be tipping the scale to immunosuppression being a risk factor.”
Asked to comment on the findings, Naissan O. Wesley, MD, director of Mohs surgery, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, stated that “this larger scale study presented at this meeting was important to further confirm what we see in everyday practice, that immunosuppression may lead to poorer outcomes in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.”
Also weighing in on the data, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that the treatment of cSCC in high-risk patients has been challenging because of the historical lack of data and large studies to guide management.
“The authors provide a large cohort to help stratify which patients are most at risk for poor outcomes, which can inform our decision to refer for neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment and multi-disciplinary management,” he said. “This is the first step in being able to optimize cure in these patients.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Klein, Dr. Lewin, and Dr. Wesley reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Immunosuppression is an independent risk factor for poorer outcomes in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), according to new research that was presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) 2024 annual meeting.
Even though immunosuppression is strongly associated with an increased risk for cSCC, studies to date have generally not shown it to be an independent risk factor for metastasis and disease-specific death (DSD), after accounting for primary tumor stage.
“Solid organ transplant puts patients at risk for developing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and it’s more likely to have aggressive features,” said study author Jason Klein, MD, PhD, a dermatology resident at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “But it’s still not known if immunosuppression is an independent risk factor.”
Other groups “have tried to tackle this, but they have all primarily been single-institution data,” he noted, adding that “results so far have been tipping the scale towards immunosuppression not being an independent risk factor” for worse outcomes.
Immunosuppressed individuals face a greater risk for cSCC than the general population and often present with more aggressive, multifocal disease. However, Dr. Klein explained that a previous retrospective study comprising a cohort of approximately 7600 tumors from two centers reported that immunosuppression was not an independent risk factor for both tumor metastasis and cancer-specific death after adjusting for tumor characteristics.
Tipped the Scale
Therefore, the goal of the current study was to repeat this analysis but in a much larger retrospective cohort. Dr. Klein and his colleagues pooled cSCC data from 12 dermatology centers (11 academic and one private) that were located in the United States, Spain, and Brazil. The cohort included 4392 patients (3769 immunocompetent patients and 623 immunosuppressed patients) with 19,237 tumors (15,191 immunocompetent and 4046 immunosuppressed). Study endpoints included local recurrence, metastasis (nodal, satellite/in-transit, and distant), DSD, and “major poor outcomes” (defined as metastasis and DSD combined).
About 30% of the immunosuppressed patients were organ transplant recipients (OTR) and 10% had chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Half of the immunocompetent patients (50.3%) underwent Mohs surgery as the primary treatment, as did 58.2% of the immunosuppressed patients.
On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of “major poor outcomes” included immunosuppression (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.3; P = .04), Brigham and Women’s Hospital tumor stage (SHR 6.7 for T2a, 18.1 for T2b, and 37.2 for T3; P < .001 for all), location on the head/neck (SHR, 2.1; P < .001), and adjuvant radiation (SHR, 1.6; P < .001).
But when metastasis and DSD were evaluated separately, immunosuppression was only predictive of DSD (SHR, 1.7; P = .008) but not metastasis (SHR, 1.2; P = .21). Dr. Klein explained that they also conducted a separate subanalysis limited to OTR and patients with CLL, which demonstrated that immunosuppression was no longer a significant predictor of “major poor outcomes” (SHR, 0.9; P = .66 for OTR; SHR, 1.4; P = .25 for CLL).
“Organ transplant status and CLL were not independent risk factors for major poor outcomes,” he said. “But in summary, we may be tipping the scale to immunosuppression being a risk factor.”
Asked to comment on the findings, Naissan O. Wesley, MD, director of Mohs surgery, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, stated that “this larger scale study presented at this meeting was important to further confirm what we see in everyday practice, that immunosuppression may lead to poorer outcomes in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.”
Also weighing in on the data, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that the treatment of cSCC in high-risk patients has been challenging because of the historical lack of data and large studies to guide management.
“The authors provide a large cohort to help stratify which patients are most at risk for poor outcomes, which can inform our decision to refer for neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment and multi-disciplinary management,” he said. “This is the first step in being able to optimize cure in these patients.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Klein, Dr. Lewin, and Dr. Wesley reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Immunosuppression is an independent risk factor for poorer outcomes in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), according to new research that was presented at the American College of Mohs Surgery (ACMS) 2024 annual meeting.
Even though immunosuppression is strongly associated with an increased risk for cSCC, studies to date have generally not shown it to be an independent risk factor for metastasis and disease-specific death (DSD), after accounting for primary tumor stage.
“Solid organ transplant puts patients at risk for developing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, and it’s more likely to have aggressive features,” said study author Jason Klein, MD, PhD, a dermatology resident at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. “But it’s still not known if immunosuppression is an independent risk factor.”
Other groups “have tried to tackle this, but they have all primarily been single-institution data,” he noted, adding that “results so far have been tipping the scale towards immunosuppression not being an independent risk factor” for worse outcomes.
Immunosuppressed individuals face a greater risk for cSCC than the general population and often present with more aggressive, multifocal disease. However, Dr. Klein explained that a previous retrospective study comprising a cohort of approximately 7600 tumors from two centers reported that immunosuppression was not an independent risk factor for both tumor metastasis and cancer-specific death after adjusting for tumor characteristics.
Tipped the Scale
Therefore, the goal of the current study was to repeat this analysis but in a much larger retrospective cohort. Dr. Klein and his colleagues pooled cSCC data from 12 dermatology centers (11 academic and one private) that were located in the United States, Spain, and Brazil. The cohort included 4392 patients (3769 immunocompetent patients and 623 immunosuppressed patients) with 19,237 tumors (15,191 immunocompetent and 4046 immunosuppressed). Study endpoints included local recurrence, metastasis (nodal, satellite/in-transit, and distant), DSD, and “major poor outcomes” (defined as metastasis and DSD combined).
About 30% of the immunosuppressed patients were organ transplant recipients (OTR) and 10% had chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Half of the immunocompetent patients (50.3%) underwent Mohs surgery as the primary treatment, as did 58.2% of the immunosuppressed patients.
On multivariable analysis, significant predictors of “major poor outcomes” included immunosuppression (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.3; P = .04), Brigham and Women’s Hospital tumor stage (SHR 6.7 for T2a, 18.1 for T2b, and 37.2 for T3; P < .001 for all), location on the head/neck (SHR, 2.1; P < .001), and adjuvant radiation (SHR, 1.6; P < .001).
But when metastasis and DSD were evaluated separately, immunosuppression was only predictive of DSD (SHR, 1.7; P = .008) but not metastasis (SHR, 1.2; P = .21). Dr. Klein explained that they also conducted a separate subanalysis limited to OTR and patients with CLL, which demonstrated that immunosuppression was no longer a significant predictor of “major poor outcomes” (SHR, 0.9; P = .66 for OTR; SHR, 1.4; P = .25 for CLL).
“Organ transplant status and CLL were not independent risk factors for major poor outcomes,” he said. “But in summary, we may be tipping the scale to immunosuppression being a risk factor.”
Asked to comment on the findings, Naissan O. Wesley, MD, director of Mohs surgery, Skin Care and Laser Physicians of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, stated that “this larger scale study presented at this meeting was important to further confirm what we see in everyday practice, that immunosuppression may lead to poorer outcomes in patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.”
Also weighing in on the data, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, noted that the treatment of cSCC in high-risk patients has been challenging because of the historical lack of data and large studies to guide management.
“The authors provide a large cohort to help stratify which patients are most at risk for poor outcomes, which can inform our decision to refer for neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment and multi-disciplinary management,” he said. “This is the first step in being able to optimize cure in these patients.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Klein, Dr. Lewin, and Dr. Wesley reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2024
Study Finds Injuries, Stress Levels Increased Among Mohs Surgeons
PHOENIX — In addition, most surgeons did not feel prepared to manage or prevent these symptoms.
“Our study highlights the need to implement ergonomic training and emotion-focused coping skills, as part of fellowship training and the continuing medical education curriculum, to alleviate and prevent emotional burnout,” said lead author Eduardo A. Michelen-Gómez, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juano. “This interaction also must be designed to cater to generation and sex specific needs.”
Dr. Michelen-Gómez presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs is a demanding procedure that involves repetitive motion, strict attention to detail, and high practice efficiency, all of which must be balanced with the need to prioritize patient safety and well-being. “All of these factors predispose Mohs surgeons to be at an increased risk of physical and emotional stress,” he said.
Despite these concerns, however, the literature is limited concerning work-associated stressors among Mohs surgeons. To further explore this issue, Dr. Michelen-Gómez and colleagues conducted a survey study of ACMS members to investigate not only the prevalence of emotional and physical stressors associated with being a Mohs surgeon but also what specific actions physicians were taking to prevent and/or treat these stressors.
They designed a 21-question cross-sectional electronic survey that was sent to all active ACMS members in 2023. Outcomes evaluated were gender, years of practice, concern for and prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal disorders, emotional stress and burnout, and surgeon’s knowledge and training to manage these symptoms. A total of 473 Mohs surgeons responded.
High Prevalence of Injury and Burnout
“Almost 90% of respondents reported moderate to severe concern for occupational musculoskeletal injuries,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. “The prevalence of these injuries was 68%, with neck injuries being the most common complaint. Of the entire cohort, 67% have adopted ergonomic practices patterns.”
Female surgeons had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries than men, and there was no correlation between years of practice and prevalence of these injuries.
Their results also showed that 70% of respondents reported experiencing psychological and emotional stress or burnout associated with being a Mohs surgeon. The cause of emotional stress differed between men and women. “In males, the most common cause was patient care–related anxiety, while in females, it was finding an adequate work-life balance,” he said.
Surgeons with fewer years of experience were more likely to experience emotional stress (P = .01), and female surgeons had a higher prevalence of burnout and musculoskeletal disorders (71.0% and 71.4%, respectively) than male surgeons (67.7% and 65.2%, respectively).
To prevent or manage musculoskeletal injury, respondents reported using interventions such as physical therapy, yoga/stretching/Pilates, massage therapy, cupping, and using a physical trainer. Specific actions for preventing or managing emotional stress and burnout included engaging with a therapist, working with a life coach, practicing meditation or mindfulness, journaling, relying on religion or spirituality, and exercise.
However, among those who reported musculoskeletal disorders or emotional stress, only 40.56% and 46.67%, respectively, felt they had sufficient knowledge and the resources to manage them appropriately.
“In addition, we found a positive correlation between the development of psychological stress and physical issues,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. Future studies can include determining the most effective methods to address the emotional and physical stressors of practicing Mohs Surgery.”
Asked to comment on the study findings, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the real-world take-home messages from this study are twofold.
“It is important to focus on physician wellness and prevention of burnout and physical injury to protect our physician workforce, and two, we should equip physicians-in-training with tools to protect their physical and emotional health,” he said.
Dr. Michelen-Gómez and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — In addition, most surgeons did not feel prepared to manage or prevent these symptoms.
“Our study highlights the need to implement ergonomic training and emotion-focused coping skills, as part of fellowship training and the continuing medical education curriculum, to alleviate and prevent emotional burnout,” said lead author Eduardo A. Michelen-Gómez, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juano. “This interaction also must be designed to cater to generation and sex specific needs.”
Dr. Michelen-Gómez presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs is a demanding procedure that involves repetitive motion, strict attention to detail, and high practice efficiency, all of which must be balanced with the need to prioritize patient safety and well-being. “All of these factors predispose Mohs surgeons to be at an increased risk of physical and emotional stress,” he said.
Despite these concerns, however, the literature is limited concerning work-associated stressors among Mohs surgeons. To further explore this issue, Dr. Michelen-Gómez and colleagues conducted a survey study of ACMS members to investigate not only the prevalence of emotional and physical stressors associated with being a Mohs surgeon but also what specific actions physicians were taking to prevent and/or treat these stressors.
They designed a 21-question cross-sectional electronic survey that was sent to all active ACMS members in 2023. Outcomes evaluated were gender, years of practice, concern for and prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal disorders, emotional stress and burnout, and surgeon’s knowledge and training to manage these symptoms. A total of 473 Mohs surgeons responded.
High Prevalence of Injury and Burnout
“Almost 90% of respondents reported moderate to severe concern for occupational musculoskeletal injuries,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. “The prevalence of these injuries was 68%, with neck injuries being the most common complaint. Of the entire cohort, 67% have adopted ergonomic practices patterns.”
Female surgeons had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries than men, and there was no correlation between years of practice and prevalence of these injuries.
Their results also showed that 70% of respondents reported experiencing psychological and emotional stress or burnout associated with being a Mohs surgeon. The cause of emotional stress differed between men and women. “In males, the most common cause was patient care–related anxiety, while in females, it was finding an adequate work-life balance,” he said.
Surgeons with fewer years of experience were more likely to experience emotional stress (P = .01), and female surgeons had a higher prevalence of burnout and musculoskeletal disorders (71.0% and 71.4%, respectively) than male surgeons (67.7% and 65.2%, respectively).
To prevent or manage musculoskeletal injury, respondents reported using interventions such as physical therapy, yoga/stretching/Pilates, massage therapy, cupping, and using a physical trainer. Specific actions for preventing or managing emotional stress and burnout included engaging with a therapist, working with a life coach, practicing meditation or mindfulness, journaling, relying on religion or spirituality, and exercise.
However, among those who reported musculoskeletal disorders or emotional stress, only 40.56% and 46.67%, respectively, felt they had sufficient knowledge and the resources to manage them appropriately.
“In addition, we found a positive correlation between the development of psychological stress and physical issues,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. Future studies can include determining the most effective methods to address the emotional and physical stressors of practicing Mohs Surgery.”
Asked to comment on the study findings, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the real-world take-home messages from this study are twofold.
“It is important to focus on physician wellness and prevention of burnout and physical injury to protect our physician workforce, and two, we should equip physicians-in-training with tools to protect their physical and emotional health,” he said.
Dr. Michelen-Gómez and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — In addition, most surgeons did not feel prepared to manage or prevent these symptoms.
“Our study highlights the need to implement ergonomic training and emotion-focused coping skills, as part of fellowship training and the continuing medical education curriculum, to alleviate and prevent emotional burnout,” said lead author Eduardo A. Michelen-Gómez, MD, a dermatology resident at the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, San Juano. “This interaction also must be designed to cater to generation and sex specific needs.”
Dr. Michelen-Gómez presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
Mohs is a demanding procedure that involves repetitive motion, strict attention to detail, and high practice efficiency, all of which must be balanced with the need to prioritize patient safety and well-being. “All of these factors predispose Mohs surgeons to be at an increased risk of physical and emotional stress,” he said.
Despite these concerns, however, the literature is limited concerning work-associated stressors among Mohs surgeons. To further explore this issue, Dr. Michelen-Gómez and colleagues conducted a survey study of ACMS members to investigate not only the prevalence of emotional and physical stressors associated with being a Mohs surgeon but also what specific actions physicians were taking to prevent and/or treat these stressors.
They designed a 21-question cross-sectional electronic survey that was sent to all active ACMS members in 2023. Outcomes evaluated were gender, years of practice, concern for and prevalence of occupational musculoskeletal disorders, emotional stress and burnout, and surgeon’s knowledge and training to manage these symptoms. A total of 473 Mohs surgeons responded.
High Prevalence of Injury and Burnout
“Almost 90% of respondents reported moderate to severe concern for occupational musculoskeletal injuries,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. “The prevalence of these injuries was 68%, with neck injuries being the most common complaint. Of the entire cohort, 67% have adopted ergonomic practices patterns.”
Female surgeons had a higher prevalence of musculoskeletal injuries than men, and there was no correlation between years of practice and prevalence of these injuries.
Their results also showed that 70% of respondents reported experiencing psychological and emotional stress or burnout associated with being a Mohs surgeon. The cause of emotional stress differed between men and women. “In males, the most common cause was patient care–related anxiety, while in females, it was finding an adequate work-life balance,” he said.
Surgeons with fewer years of experience were more likely to experience emotional stress (P = .01), and female surgeons had a higher prevalence of burnout and musculoskeletal disorders (71.0% and 71.4%, respectively) than male surgeons (67.7% and 65.2%, respectively).
To prevent or manage musculoskeletal injury, respondents reported using interventions such as physical therapy, yoga/stretching/Pilates, massage therapy, cupping, and using a physical trainer. Specific actions for preventing or managing emotional stress and burnout included engaging with a therapist, working with a life coach, practicing meditation or mindfulness, journaling, relying on religion or spirituality, and exercise.
However, among those who reported musculoskeletal disorders or emotional stress, only 40.56% and 46.67%, respectively, felt they had sufficient knowledge and the resources to manage them appropriately.
“In addition, we found a positive correlation between the development of psychological stress and physical issues,” said Dr. Michelen-Gómez. Future studies can include determining the most effective methods to address the emotional and physical stressors of practicing Mohs Surgery.”
Asked to comment on the study findings, Jesse M. Lewin, MD, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said that the real-world take-home messages from this study are twofold.
“It is important to focus on physician wellness and prevention of burnout and physical injury to protect our physician workforce, and two, we should equip physicians-in-training with tools to protect their physical and emotional health,” he said.
Dr. Michelen-Gómez and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2024
Reimbursement for Mohs Surgery Not Keeping Up With Health Care Costs
PHOENIX — Medicare cuts, which are expected to continue, have exacerbated this issue even further.
“This ongoing downward trend in inflation-adjusted reimbursement may lead to delayed patient access to quality dermatology surgical care,” said lead study author Lily Park, DO, a resident in the Department of Dermatology, Larkin Community Hospital, Miami. “This trend will lead to reduced access.”
Dr. Park emphasized that reimbursement for Mohs surgery has also been further affected by the multiple surgery reduction rule, which is where Medicare pays less for the second and subsequent procedures performed during the same patient encounter. Reductions may be calculated in several ways, depending on what kind of procedure or service is involved.
“The Mohs surgery community needs to be aware of this financial trend and actively engage with healthcare policymakers to ensure the establishment of a sustainable payment infrastructure,” she said.
Dr. Park presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The landscape of healthcare economics continues to evolve and has been further complicated by rising inflation. In addition, a 2% cut to the Medicare payment conversion factor was implemented in 2023, followed by a further 3.37% cut in early 2024 — which was cut by half in March 2024, with an additional cut expected this year, she noted. “This has presented more challenges for dermatologic surgeons who are already dealing with the rising healthcare costs.”
However, despite these financial challenges, there is a lack of research on physician reimbursement for dermatologic procedures, including surgery.
Decreased Reimbursement for All Procedures
Dr. Park and colleagues analyzed trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for Mohs micrographic surgery and several other common dermatologic procedures. Beginning with 2007, they calculated the inflation-adjusted values for each year’s non-facility prices for all codes except Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 11102 and 11104. For those two codes, inflation-adjusted prices were based on the prices in 2019, the year when the codes were first introduced. The authors estimated the inflation adjusted value for each year based on the non-facility price for 2007, and the difference between the rate of inflation and the change in physician reimbursement over time was calculated.
The six most commonly performed procedures in 2023, ranked in descending order of frequency, were identified as CPT 17000, used for the removal of actinic keratosis; CPT 11102, used for biopsy of skin; CPT 17110, used for the destruction of benign lesions such as seborrheic keratoses and warts; CPT 17311, used for the destruction of malignant lesions (including Mohs surgery); CPT 11104, which is also related to biopsy of skin; and CPT 10060, used for incision and drainage of abscess.
Their analysis showed that all CPT codes experienced a decline when compared with their inflation-adjusted values. Both Mohs surgery (17311) and benign destruction of premalignant lesions (17000) showed a decrease of 46% in reimbursement during an inflation-adjusted 18-year time span between 2007 and 2024.
When adjusted for inflation, Dr. Park noted, reimbursement for CPT 17311 and 17000 should actually be increased by 42% and 41% in 2024, respectively. The greatest declines in reimbursement were seen during the last 4 years.
“Future legislation, such as H.R.2474, a bill proposing inflation-based updates to physician pay, would aid us in the future if implemented,” said Dr. Park.
Dangerous Trend
The finding that payments have declined for many common dermatologic procedures since 2007 “is particularly important given the rising cost of healthcare delivery,” said Jesse M. Lewin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study results. “The administrative burden of electronic medical records, filing, and following up insurance claims has necessitated the employment of more non-physician staff to support these tasks,” he told this news organization.
“Declining reimbursement for Mohs surgery and other cancer-related procedures is a dangerous trend, as the ultimate impact will be the effect it has on quality and accessibility of skin cancer care for patients,” added Dr. Lewin, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. “This is an important study that reinforces physician engagement in healthcare policy and legislation to advocate for our specialty and patients.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Park and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Medicare cuts, which are expected to continue, have exacerbated this issue even further.
“This ongoing downward trend in inflation-adjusted reimbursement may lead to delayed patient access to quality dermatology surgical care,” said lead study author Lily Park, DO, a resident in the Department of Dermatology, Larkin Community Hospital, Miami. “This trend will lead to reduced access.”
Dr. Park emphasized that reimbursement for Mohs surgery has also been further affected by the multiple surgery reduction rule, which is where Medicare pays less for the second and subsequent procedures performed during the same patient encounter. Reductions may be calculated in several ways, depending on what kind of procedure or service is involved.
“The Mohs surgery community needs to be aware of this financial trend and actively engage with healthcare policymakers to ensure the establishment of a sustainable payment infrastructure,” she said.
Dr. Park presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The landscape of healthcare economics continues to evolve and has been further complicated by rising inflation. In addition, a 2% cut to the Medicare payment conversion factor was implemented in 2023, followed by a further 3.37% cut in early 2024 — which was cut by half in March 2024, with an additional cut expected this year, she noted. “This has presented more challenges for dermatologic surgeons who are already dealing with the rising healthcare costs.”
However, despite these financial challenges, there is a lack of research on physician reimbursement for dermatologic procedures, including surgery.
Decreased Reimbursement for All Procedures
Dr. Park and colleagues analyzed trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for Mohs micrographic surgery and several other common dermatologic procedures. Beginning with 2007, they calculated the inflation-adjusted values for each year’s non-facility prices for all codes except Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 11102 and 11104. For those two codes, inflation-adjusted prices were based on the prices in 2019, the year when the codes were first introduced. The authors estimated the inflation adjusted value for each year based on the non-facility price for 2007, and the difference between the rate of inflation and the change in physician reimbursement over time was calculated.
The six most commonly performed procedures in 2023, ranked in descending order of frequency, were identified as CPT 17000, used for the removal of actinic keratosis; CPT 11102, used for biopsy of skin; CPT 17110, used for the destruction of benign lesions such as seborrheic keratoses and warts; CPT 17311, used for the destruction of malignant lesions (including Mohs surgery); CPT 11104, which is also related to biopsy of skin; and CPT 10060, used for incision and drainage of abscess.
Their analysis showed that all CPT codes experienced a decline when compared with their inflation-adjusted values. Both Mohs surgery (17311) and benign destruction of premalignant lesions (17000) showed a decrease of 46% in reimbursement during an inflation-adjusted 18-year time span between 2007 and 2024.
When adjusted for inflation, Dr. Park noted, reimbursement for CPT 17311 and 17000 should actually be increased by 42% and 41% in 2024, respectively. The greatest declines in reimbursement were seen during the last 4 years.
“Future legislation, such as H.R.2474, a bill proposing inflation-based updates to physician pay, would aid us in the future if implemented,” said Dr. Park.
Dangerous Trend
The finding that payments have declined for many common dermatologic procedures since 2007 “is particularly important given the rising cost of healthcare delivery,” said Jesse M. Lewin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study results. “The administrative burden of electronic medical records, filing, and following up insurance claims has necessitated the employment of more non-physician staff to support these tasks,” he told this news organization.
“Declining reimbursement for Mohs surgery and other cancer-related procedures is a dangerous trend, as the ultimate impact will be the effect it has on quality and accessibility of skin cancer care for patients,” added Dr. Lewin, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. “This is an important study that reinforces physician engagement in healthcare policy and legislation to advocate for our specialty and patients.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Park and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Medicare cuts, which are expected to continue, have exacerbated this issue even further.
“This ongoing downward trend in inflation-adjusted reimbursement may lead to delayed patient access to quality dermatology surgical care,” said lead study author Lily Park, DO, a resident in the Department of Dermatology, Larkin Community Hospital, Miami. “This trend will lead to reduced access.”
Dr. Park emphasized that reimbursement for Mohs surgery has also been further affected by the multiple surgery reduction rule, which is where Medicare pays less for the second and subsequent procedures performed during the same patient encounter. Reductions may be calculated in several ways, depending on what kind of procedure or service is involved.
“The Mohs surgery community needs to be aware of this financial trend and actively engage with healthcare policymakers to ensure the establishment of a sustainable payment infrastructure,” she said.
Dr. Park presented the study results at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
The landscape of healthcare economics continues to evolve and has been further complicated by rising inflation. In addition, a 2% cut to the Medicare payment conversion factor was implemented in 2023, followed by a further 3.37% cut in early 2024 — which was cut by half in March 2024, with an additional cut expected this year, she noted. “This has presented more challenges for dermatologic surgeons who are already dealing with the rising healthcare costs.”
However, despite these financial challenges, there is a lack of research on physician reimbursement for dermatologic procedures, including surgery.
Decreased Reimbursement for All Procedures
Dr. Park and colleagues analyzed trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for Mohs micrographic surgery and several other common dermatologic procedures. Beginning with 2007, they calculated the inflation-adjusted values for each year’s non-facility prices for all codes except Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 11102 and 11104. For those two codes, inflation-adjusted prices were based on the prices in 2019, the year when the codes were first introduced. The authors estimated the inflation adjusted value for each year based on the non-facility price for 2007, and the difference between the rate of inflation and the change in physician reimbursement over time was calculated.
The six most commonly performed procedures in 2023, ranked in descending order of frequency, were identified as CPT 17000, used for the removal of actinic keratosis; CPT 11102, used for biopsy of skin; CPT 17110, used for the destruction of benign lesions such as seborrheic keratoses and warts; CPT 17311, used for the destruction of malignant lesions (including Mohs surgery); CPT 11104, which is also related to biopsy of skin; and CPT 10060, used for incision and drainage of abscess.
Their analysis showed that all CPT codes experienced a decline when compared with their inflation-adjusted values. Both Mohs surgery (17311) and benign destruction of premalignant lesions (17000) showed a decrease of 46% in reimbursement during an inflation-adjusted 18-year time span between 2007 and 2024.
When adjusted for inflation, Dr. Park noted, reimbursement for CPT 17311 and 17000 should actually be increased by 42% and 41% in 2024, respectively. The greatest declines in reimbursement were seen during the last 4 years.
“Future legislation, such as H.R.2474, a bill proposing inflation-based updates to physician pay, would aid us in the future if implemented,” said Dr. Park.
Dangerous Trend
The finding that payments have declined for many common dermatologic procedures since 2007 “is particularly important given the rising cost of healthcare delivery,” said Jesse M. Lewin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study results. “The administrative burden of electronic medical records, filing, and following up insurance claims has necessitated the employment of more non-physician staff to support these tasks,” he told this news organization.
“Declining reimbursement for Mohs surgery and other cancer-related procedures is a dangerous trend, as the ultimate impact will be the effect it has on quality and accessibility of skin cancer care for patients,” added Dr. Lewin, chief of Mohs micrographic and dermatologic surgery and vice chair of surgical operations at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City. “This is an important study that reinforces physician engagement in healthcare policy and legislation to advocate for our specialty and patients.”
The study was independently supported. Dr. Park and Dr. Lewin, who was not involved with the study, reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2024
Does More Systemic Treatment for Advanced Cancer Improve Survival?
This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.
What Were the Main Findings?
“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.
“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”
An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
How Does This Study Add to the Literature?
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.
But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.
Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.
“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”
This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.
Could This Change Practice?
The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.
Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.
“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.
“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”
Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.
This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.
What Were the Main Findings?
“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.
“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”
An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
How Does This Study Add to the Literature?
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.
But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.
Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.
“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”
This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.
Could This Change Practice?
The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.
Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.
“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.
“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”
Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.
This conclusion of a new study published online May 16 in JAMA Oncology may help reassure oncologists that giving systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) at the most advanced stages of cancer will not improve the patient’s life, the authors wrote. It also may encourage them to instead focus more on honest communication with patients about their choices, Maureen E. Canavan, PhD, at the Cancer and Outcomes, Public Policy and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues, wrote in their paper.
How Was the Study Conducted?
Researchers used Flatiron Health, a nationwide electronic health records database of academic and community practices throughout the United State. They identified 78,446 adults with advanced or metastatic stages of one of six common cancers (breast, colorectal, urothelial, non–small cell lung cancer [NSCLC], pancreatic and renal cell carcinoma) who were treated at healthcare practices from 2015 to 2019. They then stratified practices into quintiles based on how often the practices treated patients with any systemic therapy, including chemotherapy and immunotherapy, in their last 14 days of life. They compared whether patients in practices with greater use of systemic treatment at very advanced stages had longer overall survival.
What Were the Main Findings?
“We saw that there were absolutely no survival differences between the practices that used more systemic therapy for very advanced cancer than the practices that use less,” said senior author Kerin Adelson, MD, chief quality and value officer at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. In some cancers, those in the lowest quintile (those with the lowest rates of systemic end-of-life care) lived fewer years compared with those in the highest quintiles. In other cancers, those in the lowest quintiles lived more years than those in the highest quintiles.
“What’s important is that none of those differences, after you control for other factors, was statistically significant,” Dr. Adelson said. “That was the same in every cancer type we looked at.”
An example is seen in advanced urothelial cancer. Those in the first quintile (lowest rates of systemic care at end of life) had an SACT rate range of 4.0-9.1. The SACT rate range in the highest quintile was 19.8-42.6. But the median overall survival (OS) rate for those in the lowest quintile was 12.7 months, not statistically different from the median OS in the highest quintile (11 months.)
How Does This Study Add to the Literature?
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) developed a cancer quality metric to reduce SACT at the end of life. The NQF 0210 is a ratio of patients who get systemic treatment within 14 days of death over all patients who die of cancer. The quality metric has been widely adopted and used in value-based care reporting.
But the metric has been criticized because it focuses only on people who died and not people who lived longer because they benefited from the systemic therapy, the authors wrote.
Dr. Canavan’s team focused on all patients treated in the practice, not just those who died, Dr. Adelson said. This may put that criticism to rest, Dr. Adelson said.
“I personally believed the ASCO and NQF metric was appropriate and the criticisms were off base,” said Otis Brawley, MD, associate director of community outreach and engagement at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. “Canavan’s study is evidence suggesting the metrics were appropriate.”
This study included not just chemotherapy, as some other studies have, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies as well. Dr. Adelson said some think that the newer drugs might change the prognosis at end of life. But this study shows “even those drugs are not helping patients to survive with very advanced cancer,” she said.
Could This Change Practice?
The authors noted that end-of life SACT has been linked with more acute care use, delays in conversations about care goals, late enrollment in hospice, higher costs, and potentially shorter and poorer quality life.
Dr. Adelson said she’s hoping that the knowledge that there’s no survival benefit for use of SACT for patients with advanced solid tumors who are nearing the end of life will lead instead to more conversations about prognosis with patients and transitions to palliative care.
“Palliative care has actually been shown to improve quality of life and, in some studies, even survival,” she said.
“I doubt it will change practice, but it should,” Dr. Brawley said. “The study suggests that doctors and patients have too much hope for chemotherapy as patients’ disease progresses. In the US especially, there is a tendency to believe we have better therapies than we truly do and we have difficulty accepting that the patient is dying. Many patients get third- and fourth-line chemotherapy that is highly likely to increase suffering without realistic hope of prolonging life and especially no hope of prolonging life with good quality.”
Dr. Adelson disclosed ties with AbbVie, Quantum Health, Gilead, ParetoHealth, and Carrum Health. Various coauthors disclosed ties with Roche, AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Genentech, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and AstraZeneca. The study was funded by Flatiron Health, an independent member of the Roche group. Dr. Brawley reports no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Merkel Cell: Immunotherapy Not Used for Many Patients With Metastatic Disease
PHOENIX — Immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes for patients are better at high-volume centers.
The study has important implications, said study author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, an incoming fellow in Mohs surgery at New York University, New York City. “We can see that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival,” he said. “We also found high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers.” He presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality, and even though it remains relatively rare, its incidence has been rising rapidly since the late 1990s and continues to increase. There were no approved treatments available until 2017, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the immunotherapy drug avelumab (Bavencio) to treat advanced MCC. Two years later, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) also received regulatory approval for MCC, and these two agents have revolutionized outcomes.
“In clinical trial settings, these agents led to significant and durable responses, and they are now the recommended treatments in guidelines for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma,” said Dr. Cheraghlou. “However, we don’t have data as to how they are being used in the real-world setting and if survival outcomes are similar.”
Real World vs Clinical Trials
Real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. The goal of this study was to see if clinical trial data matched what was being observed in actual clinical use and if the agents were being used uniformly in centers across the United States.
The authors used data from the National Cancer Database that included patients diagnosed with cancer from 2004 to 2019 and identified 1017 adult cases of metastatic MCC. They then looked at the association of a variety of patient characteristics, tumors, and system factors with the likelihood of receiving systemic treatment for their disease.
“Our first finding was maybe the least surprising,” he said. “Patients who received these therapeutic agents had significantly improved survival compared to those who have not.”
Those who received immunotherapy had a 35% decrease in the risk for death per year compared with those who did not. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 47.2%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy compared with 62.7%, 34.4%, and 23.6%, respectively, for those who were treated with these agents.
Dr. Cheraghlou noted that they started to get some “surprising” findings when they looked at utilization data. “While it has been increasing over time, it is not as high as it should be,” he emphasized.
From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients with metastatic MCC received immunotherapy. The data also showed an increase in use from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. “This is an effective treatment for aggressive malignancy, so we have to ask why more patients aren’t getting them,” said Dr. Cheraghlou.
Their findings did suggest one possible reason, and that was that high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers. Centers that were in the top percentile for MCC case volume were three times as likely to use immunotherapy for MCC compared with other institutions. “So, if you have metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and go to a low volume center, you may be less likely to get potential lifesaving treatment,” he noted.
Implications Going Forward
Dr. Cheraghlou concluded his presentation by pointing out that this study has important implications. The data showed that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival, but all eligible patients do not have access. “In other countries, there are established referral patterns for all patients with aggressive rare malignancies and really all cancers,” he added. “But in the US, cancer care is more decentralized. Studies like this and others show that high-volume centers have much better outcomes for aggressive rare malignancies, and we should be looking at why this is the case and mitigating these disparities and outcomes.”
Commenting on the study results, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, co-director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program and professor of surgical oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, referred to the two immunotherapies that have been approved for MCC since 2017, which have demonstrated a survival benefit and improved outcomes in patients with metastatic MCC.
“In their study, immunotherapy was associated with improved outcomes,” said Dr. Farma. “This study highlights the continued lag of implementation of guidelines when new therapies are approved, and that for rare cancers like Merkel cell carcinoma, being treated at high-volume centers and the regionalization of care can lead to improved outcomes for patients.”
Dr. Cheraghlou and Dr. Farma had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes for patients are better at high-volume centers.
The study has important implications, said study author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, an incoming fellow in Mohs surgery at New York University, New York City. “We can see that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival,” he said. “We also found high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers.” He presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality, and even though it remains relatively rare, its incidence has been rising rapidly since the late 1990s and continues to increase. There were no approved treatments available until 2017, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the immunotherapy drug avelumab (Bavencio) to treat advanced MCC. Two years later, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) also received regulatory approval for MCC, and these two agents have revolutionized outcomes.
“In clinical trial settings, these agents led to significant and durable responses, and they are now the recommended treatments in guidelines for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma,” said Dr. Cheraghlou. “However, we don’t have data as to how they are being used in the real-world setting and if survival outcomes are similar.”
Real World vs Clinical Trials
Real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. The goal of this study was to see if clinical trial data matched what was being observed in actual clinical use and if the agents were being used uniformly in centers across the United States.
The authors used data from the National Cancer Database that included patients diagnosed with cancer from 2004 to 2019 and identified 1017 adult cases of metastatic MCC. They then looked at the association of a variety of patient characteristics, tumors, and system factors with the likelihood of receiving systemic treatment for their disease.
“Our first finding was maybe the least surprising,” he said. “Patients who received these therapeutic agents had significantly improved survival compared to those who have not.”
Those who received immunotherapy had a 35% decrease in the risk for death per year compared with those who did not. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 47.2%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy compared with 62.7%, 34.4%, and 23.6%, respectively, for those who were treated with these agents.
Dr. Cheraghlou noted that they started to get some “surprising” findings when they looked at utilization data. “While it has been increasing over time, it is not as high as it should be,” he emphasized.
From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients with metastatic MCC received immunotherapy. The data also showed an increase in use from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. “This is an effective treatment for aggressive malignancy, so we have to ask why more patients aren’t getting them,” said Dr. Cheraghlou.
Their findings did suggest one possible reason, and that was that high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers. Centers that were in the top percentile for MCC case volume were three times as likely to use immunotherapy for MCC compared with other institutions. “So, if you have metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and go to a low volume center, you may be less likely to get potential lifesaving treatment,” he noted.
Implications Going Forward
Dr. Cheraghlou concluded his presentation by pointing out that this study has important implications. The data showed that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival, but all eligible patients do not have access. “In other countries, there are established referral patterns for all patients with aggressive rare malignancies and really all cancers,” he added. “But in the US, cancer care is more decentralized. Studies like this and others show that high-volume centers have much better outcomes for aggressive rare malignancies, and we should be looking at why this is the case and mitigating these disparities and outcomes.”
Commenting on the study results, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, co-director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program and professor of surgical oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, referred to the two immunotherapies that have been approved for MCC since 2017, which have demonstrated a survival benefit and improved outcomes in patients with metastatic MCC.
“In their study, immunotherapy was associated with improved outcomes,” said Dr. Farma. “This study highlights the continued lag of implementation of guidelines when new therapies are approved, and that for rare cancers like Merkel cell carcinoma, being treated at high-volume centers and the regionalization of care can lead to improved outcomes for patients.”
Dr. Cheraghlou and Dr. Farma had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
PHOENIX — Immunotherapy has revolutionized outcomes for patients are better at high-volume centers.
The study has important implications, said study author Shayan Cheraghlou, MD, an incoming fellow in Mohs surgery at New York University, New York City. “We can see that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival,” he said. “We also found high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers.” He presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Mohs Surgery.
MCC is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality, and even though it remains relatively rare, its incidence has been rising rapidly since the late 1990s and continues to increase. There were no approved treatments available until 2017, when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the immunotherapy drug avelumab (Bavencio) to treat advanced MCC. Two years later, pembrolizumab (Keytruda) also received regulatory approval for MCC, and these two agents have revolutionized outcomes.
“In clinical trial settings, these agents led to significant and durable responses, and they are now the recommended treatments in guidelines for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma,” said Dr. Cheraghlou. “However, we don’t have data as to how they are being used in the real-world setting and if survival outcomes are similar.”
Real World vs Clinical Trials
Real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. The goal of this study was to see if clinical trial data matched what was being observed in actual clinical use and if the agents were being used uniformly in centers across the United States.
The authors used data from the National Cancer Database that included patients diagnosed with cancer from 2004 to 2019 and identified 1017 adult cases of metastatic MCC. They then looked at the association of a variety of patient characteristics, tumors, and system factors with the likelihood of receiving systemic treatment for their disease.
“Our first finding was maybe the least surprising,” he said. “Patients who received these therapeutic agents had significantly improved survival compared to those who have not.”
Those who received immunotherapy had a 35% decrease in the risk for death per year compared with those who did not. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 47.2%, 21.8%, and 16.5%, respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy compared with 62.7%, 34.4%, and 23.6%, respectively, for those who were treated with these agents.
Dr. Cheraghlou noted that they started to get some “surprising” findings when they looked at utilization data. “While it has been increasing over time, it is not as high as it should be,” he emphasized.
From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients with metastatic MCC received immunotherapy. The data also showed an increase in use from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. “This is an effective treatment for aggressive malignancy, so we have to ask why more patients aren’t getting them,” said Dr. Cheraghlou.
Their findings did suggest one possible reason, and that was that high-volume centers were significantly more likely to use the agents than low-volume centers. Centers that were in the top percentile for MCC case volume were three times as likely to use immunotherapy for MCC compared with other institutions. “So, if you have metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma and go to a low volume center, you may be less likely to get potential lifesaving treatment,” he noted.
Implications Going Forward
Dr. Cheraghlou concluded his presentation by pointing out that this study has important implications. The data showed that in a real-world setting, these agents have an impact on survival, but all eligible patients do not have access. “In other countries, there are established referral patterns for all patients with aggressive rare malignancies and really all cancers,” he added. “But in the US, cancer care is more decentralized. Studies like this and others show that high-volume centers have much better outcomes for aggressive rare malignancies, and we should be looking at why this is the case and mitigating these disparities and outcomes.”
Commenting on the study results, Jeffrey M. Farma, MD, co-director of the Melanoma and Skin Cancer Program and professor of surgical oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, referred to the two immunotherapies that have been approved for MCC since 2017, which have demonstrated a survival benefit and improved outcomes in patients with metastatic MCC.
“In their study, immunotherapy was associated with improved outcomes,” said Dr. Farma. “This study highlights the continued lag of implementation of guidelines when new therapies are approved, and that for rare cancers like Merkel cell carcinoma, being treated at high-volume centers and the regionalization of care can lead to improved outcomes for patients.”
Dr. Cheraghlou and Dr. Farma had no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACMS 2024